"Lieberman lost because democrat voters in Connecticut have rejected the Iraq war and his support of it. So they cast their ballots for Ned Lamont a man who has no idea what the terror war is all about, judging by his public policy statements. And a new poll says that Connecticut is not unique; 60% of Americans now oppose the campaign in Iraq. And who can blame them: it's chaos over there, Muslims are killing each other and the new Iraqi government can't get organized. The biggest problem here is that Iran is behind the sectarian violence according to Stratfor and other astute analysts. Iran now has the power to mobilize terror killers in Lebanon and in Iraq and create mini-wars designed to wear down Israel and the USA. If America and Britain pull out of Iraq, Iran would then dominate the country and control Iraq's oil. I do not believe that Ned Lamont and his fellow travelers understand any of this. The far-left continues to believe that the USA is the root cause of the terror war and that Iran is not a major threat. Joseph Lieberman does understand the danger and did not sell out his country to pander to the anti-war vote. For that, he was defeated. I believe this is a chilling indication of what lies ahead in American politics. Iran is betting we Americans have no will to restrain their jihad and judging from the Connecticut vote last night they might be right."

Maryland Democratic Congressman Albert Wynn had a different view: "Keep your hands off the panic button. Iran is definitely a problem, but our staying in Iraq is not going to solve the problem. As a matter of fact, if you think about it, our presence in Iraq has coincided with more terrorists, more activities by Hezbollah, and more activity by Hamas. So I don't see how staying in Iraq, losing more American soldiers, is solving the problem." The Factor was incredulous: "Iran controls the Mahdi army through the Shia cleric al- Sadr, which the new Iraqi government can't stand up to. So if the United States pulls out, Iran becomes the dominant force inside Iraq. If we pull out, and if Iran then dominates Iraq, you don't see the unintended consequences of that? I don't think you have a clue on how to confront the puppet master."

Fox Anchor Shepherd Smith, on the border in Israel, described how the Israeli offensive is changing: "The push has changed. I watched dozens upon dozens upon dozens of tanks from the northeast of Israel go across the boarder and into Lebanon just a couple of hours ago. The hope is that with this new push they'll be able to lower the number of Katyushas, because, quite frankly, originally they wanted to stop this firing into the north, it was very much an embarrassment for the Israelis for the Katyushas to continue. And now they're trying to stop them." The Factor summed up more of the days developments: "France seems to be taking a stronger position against Israel. That, of course, is not acceptable to the USA. The Israeli TV is reporting that Iranians have been found killed beside Hezbollah guerillas in southern Lebanon. Also, 15 Israeli soldiers reported killed today, bringing the total to around 80."

The Factor asked former Nixon counsel and author John Dean, "You've been quoted as saying that the USA is on the road to fascism. Do you really believe that?" Dean replied, "I said what could happen is, in talking to experts about this question of where authoritarianism can go, it leads right to the road to fascism. We're not on that road today. The problem is we're not very far from it, and we could very easily, with another 9/11, find ourselves right there." The Factor wasn't buying it: "It's been five years since 9/11, and that changed everything in the country, obviously. My life has not changed at all. Nobody from the government has intruded in my life, other people may have tried, but the government hasn't intruded. My rights are the same as they were five years ago before the terror attack."

The Factor described an argument with a member of the print press: "The print press in America is so stacked with liberal columnists in all sections of the papers it's hard to get an objective reading on the war on terror, for example. As part of the column I opined that "The New York Times" employs liberal columnists all over the place, including sports writer William Rhoden. Mr. Rhoden has taken issue with that." Rhoden explained why he didn't see the Times as a liberal paper: "Because I work in sports, and athletics is the most conservative spot in our sphere. Most people are conservative who are in the games. This has to do with me seeing how conservative our industry is in general." The Factor explained how he had taken Rhoden for a liberal; "On August 10, 2004, you wrote a column, 'Raising a Banner of Hope Amid the Turmoil,' and you said, 'I oppose the war in Iraq.' Then, on July 21, 2004, you were writing about Bud Selig, ordering all the teams to play 'God Bless America.' And then, on October 17, 2005, you said that John Carlos and Tommy Smith, the black power guys at the Olympics, were your heroes. I extrapolated from those three columns that you're a liberal guy. Anybody would."

The Factor described a new poll that ranked TV News personalities: "A new Gallup poll ranks us on a favorable/unfavorable basis. Diane Sawyer is the highest favorable rating, 80 percent. Shockingly, Dan Rather is No. 2. Seventy percent of Americans like the Danster. Katie Couric, 60 percent; Brian Williams, 40 percent like him. And that O'Reilly guy is liked by 45 percent. Thirty-five percent don't like me." Bernie Goldberg gave his take: "We live in the United States of entertainment. People love celebrities. News stars are celebrities. Most people don't know about biases. They don't know about who's a better reporter. And because of that, if you've got somebody who basically stays away from controversy, smiles a lot and every now and then does an interview with some dumb celebrity who has absolutely nothing to say, then you're going to get a high favorable rating." Jane Hall offered this: "I agree with Bernie in the implied reference to Diane Sawyer. I think that she's very likable. She's on morning television. Someone like Katie Couric has had more criticism, I think, because she's had more combative interviews, in my opinion, with administration officials. I think another thing is that Democrats tend to be more mainstream media consumers, more broadcast news consumers. I think you're seeing more of a trending towards partisanship on some of the cable news networks."

The Factor described another disturbing situation on the Internet: "A bunch of teen model web sites feature pictures of American kids in a variety of questionable poses. Now, the web sites say anyone under 18 must have the picture submitted by parents. And there are tons of them on display. This web site gets its money by subscriptions, which means people go in there, pay money to see these little girls, primarily little girls, but some boys, in these provocative poses. But I do believe some people are sending pictures of their children to web sites so that pedophiles can look at the pictures. You're going to pimp your kid?" Psychology Teacher Andrea Macari explained how parents could rationalize this: "Anytime somebody does something wrong, they're able to intellectualize it by coming up with lousy excuses to sort of justify their behavior. And the sad part is it's not just about endangering their own children. They're really endangering everybody's children."

Big reaction to our segment on the Army Sgt. wounded in Iraq who says the Boston Globe distorted his point of view on the war:

Murlene Cummings; Brawley, California: "I am furious that the Boston Globe distorted Sgt. Fountaine's story. If I lived in Boston that paper would be on my 'no buy' list."

James Hartsell; Lancaster, South Carolina: "O'Reilly, to make a political point about the Globe's supposed liberalism, you exploited a wounded U.S. soldier. Typical of you and shameful."

Barry Schneidman; Wilmington, Delaware: "The Boston Globe may have printed some facts, but the reporter's conclusion was obviously wrong. Certainly, the sergeant knows how he feels - and he doesn't like the article."

Steve Merrill; Williamsburg, Virginia: "It is very telling that the reporter would not appear on the Factor."

And on the segment asking about anti-Israel bias:

Robert Scalise; Nipomo, California: "While I believe the head of 'Human Rights Watch' is an honest man, he is also naive. Hezbollah controls what people say in Southern Lebanon, so how could his investigators get the truth?"

Sehmina Chopra; Salisbury, Maryland: "Every reasonable person is condemning the U.S. and Israel war that has dislocated hundreds of thousands of people. Mr. O'Reilly, shame on you, you are skewing your reporting."

Book Mentions

Check out the books mentioned during this show.

Forty Million Dollar Slaves: The Rise, Fall, and Redemption of the Black Athlete
by William C. Rhoden